IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

I..A.NO. OF 2022
IN
Dairy No. in SLP(C) NO. OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:-

1. Sri Soneshwar Deka aged years,

son of late Sonaram Deka, R/o-village Uttar Dimoria,
P.S- Khetri, Dist- Kamrup (Metro), Assam.

2. Sri Sonsing Deka aged about years

son of late Sonaram Deka, R/o-village Uttar Dimoria,
P.S- Khetri, Dist- Kamrup (Metro), Assam.

3. Sri khagen Deka aged about years

son of late Sonaram Deka, R/o-village Uttar Dimoria,
P.S- Khetri, Dist- Kamrup (Metro), Assam

4. Mr Ismail Haque
s/o
R/
…petitioners
Versus

1. Sri Birsing Deka, S/O- late Sonaram Deka, R/o-village Uttar Dimoria, P.S-
Khetri, Dist- Kamrup (Metro), Assam. Respondent/Plaintiff.

2. Sri Pabitra Deka Sri Rajesh Saraogi S/O- late Sonaram Deka, R/o-village
Uttar Dimoria, P.S- Khetri, Dist- Kamrup (Metro), Assam
….Respondents
 PERMISSION TO FILE SLP ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER NO.4

To
The Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India
And his companion Justices of the
Supreme Court of India
The humble petition of the
Petitioner abovenamed
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:-

1) That the present Special Leave Petition (Criminal) is filled against

Order dated 01.12.2023 of the Guwahati High Court of Assam,
Nagaland, Mizoram & Arunachala Pradesh in Writ Appeal No. 380 of
2023.
2) That on the date of hearing, an unfortunate turn of events involving
an error of communication between the lawyer of the Petitioners and
the Hon’ble Judge, caused to pass the impugned order imposing a
cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) on the learned
counsel for the petitioners (the Petitioner No.4 herein) to be recovered
from him and paid to the Guwahati High Court Bar Association to
made as a part of Benevolent Fund. The Hon’ble Court further
ordered that the Guwahati High Court Bar Association is permitted to
initiate recovery if the said amount is not paid within a period of 1
(one) month from today. The said cost is not recoverable from the
petitioners, but from the learned counsel for the petitioners. The
events as transpired on the said day are available on the link:
https://www.youtube.com/live/C2xhD5slybA?si=kep33Jyocq0Ao5os
, and have been extracted herein in the SLP.
3) The Counsel for the Petitioner was merely trying to impress upon the
Court that delay can be condoned and was citing the example of
condonation of delay in a commercial suit. However, the Hon’ble
Court misunderstood his submission that he was trying to mislead
the Hon’ble Court. That the Counsel for the Petitioners is now arrayed
as the Petitioner No.4 in the present Petition and sincerely apologises
for any omission, made unknowingly, and was only trying to cite an
example for the kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court. That if the
impugned order is not set aside, it shall cause not only tremendous
agony and hardship but also unparalleled distress to the reputation
of the Petitioner No.4, who is only a young lawyer, and is only
learning the ropes of the profession. That it is further submitted that
the cost also levied on the Petitioners for a delay of 22 days, is also
unjust in that it is too high, for the case at hand, and on the basis of
 the facts and circumstances of the case, and on keeping the financial
background of the Petitioners, who come bearing very humble tidings.

4) The petitioners received notices on 26-7-2022, and appeared on the

date fixed for hearing i.e. 4-8-2022 and prayed for time which was
allowed. The matter was referred before Lok Adalat to be held on 13-
8-2022, but since it was not settled, the matter was fixed on 28-10-
2022 for filing of Written Statement. On 28-10-2022 petitioners
prayed for time which was also allowed on considering the grounds
and the matter was fixed on 22-11-2022 for filing of Written
Statement. As such there was no delay in filing of Written Statement
and as such without considering that aspect of the matter
erroneously imposed the cost of Rs.20,000/- for delay of 22 days in
filing written statement, which also came to be upheld by the Hon’ble
High Court in the impugned order.
5) That the petitioners have no objection and have given their
permission to file the aforesaid special Leave Petition.

7. That the instant petition has been made bona fide and in the interest of

justice.

PRAYER
In the facts and circumstances the applicants/ Respondents prays that this
Hon’ble Court maybe pleased to:
a) Kindly Allow the petitioner to file the special Leave Petition
b) Pass any other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

DRAWN BY FILED BY
SANA PARVEEN
Advocate (ADEEL AHMED)
Advocate for the Petitioner
FILED ON: